Potential overdiagnosis of long QT syndrome using exercise stress and QT stand testing in children and adolescents with a low probability of disease

Thomas M. Roston,Astrid M. De Souza,Hilary V. Romans,Sonia Franciosi,Kathryn R. Armstrong,Shubhayan Sanatani
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.14865
IF: 2.7
2021-01-13
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
Abstract:<section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Background</h3><p>Long QT syndrome (LQTS) is a dangerous arrhythmia disorder that often presents in childhood and adolescence. The exercise stress test (EST) and QT‐stand test may unmask QT interval prolongation at key heart rate transition points in LQTS, but their utility in children is debated.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Objective</h3><p>To determine if the QT‐stand test or EST can differentiate children with a low probability of LQTS from those with confirmed LQTS.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Methods</h3><p>This retrospective study compares the corrected QT intervals (QTc) of children (&lt;19 years) during the QT‐stand test and EST. Patients were divided into three groups for comparison: confirmed LQTS (n=14), low probability of LQTS (n=14) and a control population (n=9).</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Results</h3><p>Using Bazett formula, confirmed LQTS patients had longer QTc intervals than controls when supine, standing and at 3‐4 minutes of recovery (p≤0.01). Patients with a low probability of LQTS had longer QTc duration upon standing (p=0.018) and at 1 minute of recovery (p=0.016) vs. controls. There were no significant QTc differences at any transition point between low probability and confirmed LQTS. Using Fridericia formula, differences in QTc between low probability and confirmed LQTS were also absent at the transition points examined, except at 1 minute into exercise, where low probability patients had shorter QTc intervals (437 vs 460 ms, p=0.029).</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Conclusion</h3><p>The diagnostic utility of the QT stand test and EST remain unclear in pediatric LQTS. The formula used for heart rate correction may influence accuracy, and dynamic T‐U wave morphology changes may confound interpretation in low probability situations.</p><p>This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.</p></section>
cardiac & cardiovascular systems
What problem does this paper attempt to address?